RESUMO
Recently, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has updated its guidelines for the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) without ST-segment elevation. The current consensus document of the Dutch ACS working group and the Working Group of Interventional Cardiology of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology aims to put the 2020 ESC Guidelines into the Dutch perspective and to provide practical recommendations for Dutch cardiologists, focusing on antiplatelet therapy, risk assessment and criteria for invasive strategy.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) the decision whether to treat a single culprit vessel or to perform multivessel revascularisation may be challenging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) versus culprit vessel only (CV-PCI) in patients with stable coronary artery disease or non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: In this dual-centre, prospective, randomised study a total 215 patients with MVD were randomly assigned to MV-PCI or CV-PCI. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularisation. Secondary endpoints were the combined endpoint of death or MI, the individual components of the primary endpoint, and the occurrence of stent thrombosis. Patients were followed up to 5 years after enrolment. RESULTS: The occurrence of the primary endpoint was similar at 28% versus 31% in the MV-PCI and CV-PCI group, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-1.44, pâ¯= 0.59). The rate of repeat revascularisation was 15% versus 24% (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.11, pâ¯= 0.11), whereas definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 2% versus 0% (pâ¯= 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomised study comparing the strategies for MV-PCI and CV-PCI in patients with MVD, no difference was found in the occurrence of MACE after 5 years. We observed a numerically higher rate of death or MI and a lower rate of repeat revascularisation after MV-PCI, although these findings were not statistically significant.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The OPTIMA trial was a randomised multicentre trial exploring the influence of the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on patient outcomes in an intermediate to high risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) population. In order to decide the best treatment strategy for patients presenting with NSTE-ACS, long-term outcomes are essential. METHODS: Five-year follow-up data from 133 of the 142 patients could be retrieved (94 %). The primary endpoint was a composite of death and spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI). Spontaneous MI was defined as MI occurring more than 30 days after randomisation. Secondary endpoints were the individual outcomes of death, spontaneous MI or re-PCI. RESULTS: No significant difference with respect to the primary endpoint was observed (17.8 vs. 10.1 %; HR 1.55, 95 % CI: 0.73-4.22, p = 0.21). There was no significant difference in mortality rate. However, spontaneous MI was significantly more common in the group receiving immediate PCI (11.0 vs. 1.4 %; HR 4.46, 95 % CI: 1.21-16.50, p = 0.02). We did not find a significant difference between the groups with respect to re-PCI rate. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the composite of death and spontaneous MI. The trial suggests an increased long-term risk of spontaneous MI for patients treated with immediate PCI.
